Wage Growth Is Going Up Fastest In A Decade

By William Teach October 31, 2018 – 3:00 pm

I wonder how Democrats will give the credit to Obama. Hey, maybe they’ll say that the Stimulus is finally kicking in

Let’s go to that Washington Post article, which surely gave lots of liberals at the post a case of the sad’s because Trump

U.S. workers are seeing the largest wage increase in a decade, the Labor Department reported Wednesday, as companies compete harder for employees than they did in recent years.

Wages rose 2.9 percent raise from September 2017 to September 2018, according to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index, a widely watched measure of pay that does not take inflation into account.

That is the biggest increase — not adjusted for inflation — since the year that ended in September 2008, when wages rose 3.1 percent.

Sluggish pay growth has been one of the biggest problems in this recovery, but employers are finally having to hike wages at a more normal level typically seen during good economic times. Unemployment is at a 49-year low and there are more job openings than unemployed Americans, which forces companies to fight for available workers.

For eight years we were told that recovery was coming, it was coming. Yet, it didn’t come till we had a pro-business president in office, someone who knows How Business Works, rather than thinks they know it from lectures by left wing professors and people who never did it.

And let me say to the Never Trumpers, because they have really been annoying the crap out of me lately, you may dislike Trump, but he is mostly doing the things we want a Republican president to do. If it was Jeb!, Christie, Cruz, etc, they’d be cheering. Instead, they find ways to be against the good that Trump is doing, just like Democrats.

Read: Wage Growth Is Going Up Fastest In A Decade »

Posted in Donald Trump, Economy | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 31, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon sailing ship, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on Hillary joking that all blacks look alike.

Double shot of a scary clown under the fold, so check out House Of Eratosthenes, with a post on demonizing white men

All clowns are scary, right?

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

There’s Only One Solution To Ending Hotcoldwetdry Or Something

By William Teach October 31, 2018 – 10:30 am

Surprisingly, it’s not a tax, as written by Mayer Hillman at the UK Guardian

There are three options in tackling climate change. Only one will work

The world faces a near-impossible decision – one that is already determining the character and quality of the lives of the generations succeeding us.

It is clear from the latest IPCC climate report that the first and only effective course, albeit a deeply unpopular one, would be to stop using any fossil fuels. The second would be to voluntarily minimise their use as much as climate scientists have calculated would deliver some prospect of success. Finally, we can carry on as we are by aiming to meet the growth in demand for activities dependent on fossil fuels, allowing market forces to mitigate the problems that such a course of action generates – and leave it to the next generation to set in train realistic solutions (if that is possible), that the present one has been unable to find.

These are the choices. There are no others. Future generations will judge us on what we choose to do in full knowledge – accessories before the fact – of the devastating consequences of continuing with our energy-profligate lifestyles.

What a legacy we are bequeathing – regions of the world becoming uninhabitable at an accelerating rate, creating potentially millions of ecological refugees; a burgeoning world population, diminishing reserves of finite and other resources, shortages of water and food, calamitous loss of genetic variability, and wars of survival.

Remarkably, public expectations about the future indicate that only minor changes in the carbon-based aspects of our lifestyles are anticipated. It is as if people can continue to believe that they have an inalienable right to travel as far and as frequently as they can afford. Indeed, there is a widespread refusal by politicians to admit to the fact the process of melting ice caps contributing to sea level rises, and permafrost thawing in tundra regions cannot now be stopped, let alone reversed. The longer we procrastinate, the greater the certainty of environmental degradation, social upheaval and economic chaos.

One has to wonder if Mr. Hillman will be taking a fossil fueled trip to the UN IPCC COP24 in Katowice, Poland. I wonder if he went to the pre-COP24 in Krakow, Poland, in October. Will he rail at all the attendees who took long fossil fueled trips to the conferences?

One also has to wonder when all Believers will give up their own use of fossil fuels. They’re so enthused to deny the use of reliable, inexpensive, easily obtained energy to people in 3rd world nations, which could bring them out of poverty, but, they don’t do the same in their own lives.

Read: There’s Only One Solution To Ending Hotcoldwetdry Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Energy, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

UN IPCC To Redefine What “Climate” Means

By William Teach October 31, 2018 – 8:18 am

The Cult of Climastrology has not succeeded in implementing their political agenda in full despite 30 years of spreading awareness and using things like government grants to get scientists to ape the beliefs of the CoC. Now, they are looking to redefine what climate means. A simple explanation is that it is the long term averages of weather. What is the long term? That’s where they are injecting more politics, as Dr. David Whitehouse points out (via Anthony Watts)

MOVING THE GOALPOSTS, IPCC SECRETLY REDEFINES ‘CLIMATE’

The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years. It was introduced at the 1934 Wiesbaden conference of the International Meteorological Organisation (WMO’s precursor) because data sets were only held to be reliable after 1900, so 1901 – 1930 was used as an initial basis for assessing climate. It has a certain arbitrariness, it could have been 25 years.

For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it is the 30 years centred on the present.

There are some obvious problems with this hidden change of goalposts. We have observational temperature data for the past 15 years but, of course, none for the next 15 years. However, never let it be said that the absence of data is a problem for inventive climate scientists.

Global warming is now defined by the IPCC as a speculative 30-year global average temperature that is based, on one hand, on the observed global temperature data from the past 15 years and, on the other hand, on assumed global temperatures for the next 15 years. This proposition was put before the recent IPCC meeting at Incheon, in the Republic of Korea and agreed as a reasonable thing to do to better communicate climate trends. Astonishingly, this new IPCC definition mixes real and empirical data with non-existing and speculative data and simply assumes that a short-term 15-year trend won’t change for another 15 years in the future.

However, this new definition of climate and global warming is not only philosophically unsound, it is also open to speculation and manipulation. It is one thing to speculate what the future climate might be; but for the IPCC to define climate based on data that doesn’t yet exist and is based on expectations of what might happen in the future is fraught with danger.

But, that definition, which is also not scientifically sound, is exactly what they want in order to manipulate what is perceived as climate. The average person will have zero idea what is happening, and that 50% of the climate data that’s trotted out is a bunch of mule fritters. Using this new definition, Dr. Whitehouse shows that the real trend of a statistically insignificant rise to .6C (you’ll have to hit the link for the data). When the CoC starts using their projections based on their failed computer models, we could potentially be given higher numbers for the trends. What we’ll get is 15 years of real data (that is adjusted for mumble mumble just trust us) and 15 years of non-existent data.

This might work well for fantasy sports, where you’re picking players based on what they did last year and the sites are extrapolating what they might do this year, but, not for an issue for which hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, paid for by the taxpayers, as well as a rising cost of living and loss of private freedom.

Finally, if the science was so sound, they wouldn’t need to do this. The data would speak for itself. Of course, rising temperatures and such still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation.

Read: UN IPCC To Redefine What “Climate” Means »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Could Trump Bar Illegal Aliens From Birthright Citizenship?

By William Teach October 31, 2018 – 7:56 am

Birthright citizenship seems rather cut and dry, does it not? The purpose of the passage in the 14th Amendment was explicitly to make sure that the former slaves and their children obtain immediate U.S. citizenship post-Civil War. But, it seemed to give anyone born here citizenship. Here’s how CNN is tackling it in what is supposed to be straight news (politics section), not opinion

Trump claims he can defy Constitution and end birthright citizenship

President Donald Trump offered a dramatic, if legally dubious, promise in a new interview to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, ratcheting up his hardline immigration rhetoric with a week to go before critical midterm elections.

Trump’s vow to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil came in an interview with Axios released Tuesday. Such a step would be regarded as an affront to the US Constitution, which was amended 150 years ago to include the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

But don’t call CNN biased. Regardless of their biases, is it legal?

(Daily Caller) In the U.S., birthright citizenship traces back to a clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, passed just after the Civil War. The amendment’s citizenship clause states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The clause itself is based on the legal concept of jus soli, or citizenship by “right of soil,” which contrasts with jus sanguinis, or citizenship by familial descent. It has been widely taken to apply to anyone born within U.S. territorial jurisdiction regardless of the immigration status of their parents, with the notable exception of foreign diplomats.

In its 1898 ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court held that the children of non-citizens, when born on U.S. territory, are U.S. citizens by birth. However, the parents in question in the Wong Kim Ark case were legal immigrants, meaning the court did not directly address the status of children born to parents in the U.S. illegally.

That unanswered question gives Trump room to argue the citizenship clause has been too widely interpreted, according to Johns Hopkins University professor Martha Jones, an expert on birthright citizenship.

“A narrowly tailored EO [executive order] that rested on the view that the children of unauthorized immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (in citizenship terms) and thus not citizens by virtue of Birthright is an argument that can be made,” Jones wrote Tuesday on Twitter.

It’s an interesting point. You see the part about children of foreign diplomats. They are excluded because they are not subject to the jurisdiction. It can be argued that those who arrive illegally are not subject, nor are those who overstay their visas.

Most countries in the world do not offer birthright citizenship — only 30 out of the world’s 194 nations automatically grant citizenship to children born to illegal immigrant parents, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

No European country has birthright citizenship, and the global trend over the past 30 years has been to halt the practice. Notable countries that have ended birthright citizenship in recent decades include the U.K. in 1983, Australia in 1986, India in 1987 and Ireland in 2004.

It may seem like low hanging fruit at this time, but, ending it would stop a big incentive for illegals to come and have children, as we’ve seen them use their kids as shields, saying “the kids are citizens, so, I should not be deported and should be granted citizenship, too.” That said, a growing number of illegals are ones who show up at the border with the intention of being detained by federal authorities, at which point they expect to be released so they can disappear. Since we are taking custody of them at the border, even at places that are not designated as official crossings, it could be argued that they are now under U.S. jurisdiction.

So, anyone showing up needs to be turned back. No entry. Period. If Democrats cared about the illegals who are already here, especially the so-called Dreamers, they should support tough immigration controls like this. Make it really hard for illegals to come, turn those caught back, deport those caught in the U.S. immediately, and so forth. If they did, they could most likely find support for a one time earned amnesty for those already here.

The order would also apply to tourist birthing, where people come to the U.S. specifically to have their baby, giving it citizenship. Would an order be Constitutional? We’ll have to see if one is released, and, if so, what is it’s basis and legal reasoning. Then all the lawsuits.

Read: Could Trump Bar Illegal Aliens From Birthright Citizenship? »

Posted in Constitution, Illegal Immigration | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

Small Business Owner In NJ Is Super Excited To Force Everyone Else To Pay $15 An Hour Like Him

By William Teach October 30, 2018 – 2:46 pm

They just keep trotting out this meme

I’m a small business owner, here’s why a $15 minimum wage works for us

Earlier this month, Gov. Phil Murphy presented a comprehensive vision to grow and restore confidence in New Jersey’s economy. Central to the governor’s plan is raising wages for Garden State workers — a noble idea.

As the founder and owner of a small business here in New Jersey, I not only understand the importance of paying workers a living wage, but I put that value into practice every single pay period.

At my company, Love2brew, we pay all of our employees at least $15 an hour – and it works.

I founded Love2brew in 2011 to share the joy of home-brewed beer and winemaking with enthusiasts across the country. My team entered the home-brew industry with an understanding that a high level of service and customer support would set us apart from our competition. As most small-business owners know, the quality of services offered creates loyalty to the products you sell.

And more expensive than most.

Since our founding, we learned that the best retention and performance came from team members who were earning at least $15 an hour. We saw this in their enthusiasm, focus and overall willingness to go the extra mile for every customer we serve. With that lesson learned, all Love2brew employees now make at least $15 an hour. We see this as a critical component to meeting and often exceeding our customers’ expectations of excellent service. Simply put, paying a living wage assures our team a level of personal and economic stability that translates into a passion for our purpose.

That’s quite a bit of money!

Raising our starting pay to over $15 an hour has supported our continued acceleration to a position of national leadership in our niche home-brew market. We did this all without having to raise prices on any of our 1,500-plus items. And make no mistake, Love2brew is still very much a small business with only three employees, but that hasn’t deterred us from paying everyone on our team at least $15 an hour. Supporting a $15 minimum wage isn’t only for large firms.

And the people probably deserve that money. I’d challenge owner Ron Rivers to purchase a fast food franchise or something where the skills needed are low, and see if he changes his tune. Because I’d bet his current employees are high skill. Someone making the products and the other things necessary to run Love2brew aren’t simply flipping/mircrowaving burgers and asking if you want to upsize that.

Of course, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is good for working families, too.

You can read the rest, but, what he wants is to force this by government. And what happens next? His skilled, valuable employees will realize that they deserve more than minimum wage. That they are better than someone dropping fries in oil. And will want more money. To do this, he’ll have to raise his prices. And customers might say “never mind, I can get this elsewhere.” Real world economics are a bitch.

Regardless, it’s his choice to pay $15 to start. Other professional companies do the same. Because of value.

Read: Small Business Owner In NJ Is Super Excited To Force Everyone Else To Pay $15 An Hour Like Him »

Posted in Economy | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 30, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is the notion that we’ll all soon starve from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on really, really weird gift.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Is The Driver Of The Migrant Caravan Mob Or Something

By William Teach October 30, 2018 – 10:35 am

It’s like the UK Guardian spun a wheel of things to link to Hotcoldwetdry

The unseen driver behind the migrant caravan: climate change

Thousands of Central American migrants trudging through Mexico towards the US have regularly been described as either fleeing gang violence or extreme poverty.

But another crucial driving factor behind the migrant caravan has been harder to grasp: climate change.

Most members of the migrant caravans come from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador – three countries devastated by violence, organised crime and systemic corruption, the roots of which can be traced back to the region’s cold war conflicts.

Experts say that alongside those factors, climate change in the region is exacerbating – and sometimes causing – a miasma of other problems including crop failures and poverty.

And they warn that in the coming decades, it is likely to push millions more people north towards the US.

“The focus on violence is eclipsing the big picture – which is that people are saying they are moving because of some version of food insecurity,” said Robert Albro, a researcher at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University.

“The main reason people are moving is because they don’t have anything to eat. This has a strong link to climate change – we are seeing tremendous climate instability that is radically changing food security in the region.”

Well, that’s a bummer, because ‘climate change’ is not covered by U.S. asylum laws. Of course, this entire premise is a bunch of mule fritters, but, that’s never stopped the Cult of Climastrology before.

Migrants don’t often specifically mention “climate change” as a motivating factor for leaving because the concept is so abstract and long-term, Albro said. But people in the region who depend on small farms are painfully aware of changes to weather patterns that can ruin crops and decimate incomes.

So, they don’t mention it? Weird. Fortunately, Warmist elites are there to tell the peons what to think.

Anyway, we can solve this with a tax.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is The Driver Of The Migrant Caravan Mob Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

In Case You Haven’t Figured Out A Costume Yet, Here Are Climate Change Inspired Ones

By William Teach October 30, 2018 – 8:31 am

Finally, finally, we have a Halloween climate change article

Some Climate-Change-Inspired Halloween Costumes
Environmental destruction is scary—and makes for a really frightening costume

Wondering how to craft the cleverest, scariest costume at the Halloween party this year? Since we’re of the mind that there’s nothing scarier than environmental destruction, we gathered a few ideas for ways to give your costume some eco-flair. Because if there’s anything scarier than mummies and witches, it’s climate change.

1)  Climate Change Scientist

Put on a lab coat and grab copies of the IPCC study that came out a few weeks ago saying we are likely to see major crises from climate change as early as 2040 (or just write “IPCC Study” in big letters on a piece of recycled paper). Hand it to anyone who will take it. Give it to children (or their parents!) instead of candy. To get into character, say, “We’ve been trying to tell you this for years!”

2)  (Extreme) Weatherperson

You’ll need shorts and a T-shirt, a microphone, and a parka. Dress as a weatherperson trying to report on weather patterns made more extreme by climate change. Take your layers on and off throughout the night to adjust to “changing weather.”

3) Sea Level Rise

Dress yourself as a city skyline or a skyscraper, and then put on a life jacket. Craft wearable waves out of recycled cardboard. Voila—you’re a sinking city. Bonus points if you manage to dress like an at-risk city such as Miami or New York.

For sea rise, wear a banner that says really, really, really far into the future, and another that says “completely average for a Holocene warm period.”

We also can be

  • Wildfire
  • Glider Truck Transformer
  • Natural Gas Pipeline
  • Public Lands “Ghost”
  • Clean Coal Miner (which is meant to be ironic or something)
  • Plastic Ocean Pollution

The big question, though, is can they be made sexy? The last one annoys me, because this is the Cult of Climastrology hijacking a real environmental issue for their cultish political purposes, which in turn reduces the amount of caring people have for the issue.

Now, an really interesting part is that this really is about the first article linking Halloween and ‘climate change’. Even as recent as last year I would have had multiple articles per day that I could post. Yes, many would be repetitive from previous years, things like doom for chocolate, how it is soooooo much warmer than it was 100 years ago, and so forth. This year? Almost nothing. There are finally a few today, such as the Sierra Club opening “Rick Scott’s House Of Horrors“, an article on bats for Halloween that mentions their range is expanding due to Hotcoldwetdry (but it was almost an afterthought), how billions of pounds of pumpkins will be wasted after Halloween (CC is an afterthought, too), and another on costumes. It’s October 30th. We should have seen these earlier.

Which leads to the notion that there is a serious decrease in the amount of climate change articles. Where I would have had easily 15 pages for Google search of “climate change” for the last 24 hours, now I might get 5-8. Same for Yahoo News search and others. There’s not that much in major news outlets, either. A goodly chunk come from the same sources, such as the UK Guardian. Perhaps Google has cut sources used, but, did every other search company? The cult is dying, because no one really, truly cares.

Regardless, Warmists can go dressed as hypocrites. Or Rage Boy. Or clowns

Read: In Case You Haven’t Figured Out A Costume Yet, Here Are Climate Change Inspired Ones »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, Halloween | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Washington Post Super Excited To Ban “Assault Weapons”

By William Teach October 30, 2018 – 8:08 am

On the bright side, at least they’re aren’t calling for a full gun ban for private owners

We can stop this American carnage

“WE’RE UNDER fire, we’re under fire. He’s got an automatic weapon,” was the report Saturday morning from one of the first police officers to respond to the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Minutes later, another officer radioed, “We’re taking on AK-47 fire from out the front of the synagogue.” Before the gunman was captured, four police officers were wounded and 11 people had been shot to death.

Once again, a piece of America had been turned into a war zone. Once again, the casualties were innocent people engaged in the rhythms of everyday life — this time, mostly elderly people practicing their religion. Once again, the question must be asked of what it will take — how many more mass shootings, lost lives and devastated communities — before Congress enacts sensible gun control that includes banning weapons designed for war.

War! As far as it can be determined, the rifle used wasn’t automatic, and you’d have to be an idiot to take a semi-automatic weapon to war. And you can do the same thing with the non-assaulty rifles that aren’t on their banned list

The slaughter of little children at Sandy Hook Elementary School should have been enough to persuade Congress to ban assault weapons and enact other common-sense measures. That it wasn’t is both tragedy and disgrace. The carnage that has followed — the Tree of Life shooting being the most recent — has unfortunately failed to stiffen the spines of national lawmakers. But voters next week will have the chance to send their own message. They should elect a Congress that will protect them by enacting long-overdue gun reform that includes getting weapons of war off America’s streets and out of its schools, theaters, churches and synagogues.

First, what other measures? They don’t say, being the final paragraph from the Editorial Board. Based on their previous talking points, universal background checks and stuff wouldn’t work. He passed multiple background checks. They note earlier in the screed “Mass shootings account for a minority of gun fatalities, but the use of assault weapons greatly increases the rates of death and injury as well as the severity of injuries.” Well, what of Chicago, a Democratic Party run city that often gets ignored.

Five were killed and dozens were wounded over the weekend, all from handguns. Six were wounded on Monday. This is the norm for Chiraq, er, Chicago. These are all illegal. Felonies. Just like using an “assault rifle”. Are we to punish all citizens, restrict their Constitutional Rights, for the actions of a few? That is a very, very slippery slope.

Read: Washington Post Super Excited To Ban “Assault Weapons” »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Wonky Media | 32 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove